Mr Modchips Official Court Ruling Released Options

[Xbox-Scene]

Mr Modchips Official Court Ruling Released Posted by XanTium | June 24 10:27 EST | News Category: Xbox_Xbox360

From team-xecuter.com: [QUOTE] The court ruling for the Mr Modchips victory in the UK high court has been officially released to the public. Points of note are: "The prosecution contended that Mr Higgs was providing devices which enabled the circumvention of ETMs. But it is very important to understand the factual basis of the contention. It was not that the use of a modified console to play a game from an infringing CD-ROM itself involved any infringement of copyright. No attempt was made to prove that when such a CD-ROM is placed in a console, the console reads into its memory (particularly its random access memory, its "RAM") the program and copyright material included with it such as images and sound." "# In the end, therefore, one comes back to the UK Act. Is it enough if the technological measure is a discouragement or general commercial hindrance to copyright infringement or must it be a measure which physically prevents it? To our minds the position is clear - it is the latter. Neither the Directive nor the Act would have been drafted in the way that they are if such a general form of hindrance was enough. # It is for those reasons we quashed the convictions. Mr Higgs is a fortunate man in that it may well be that if the legislation had been less complex and/or the Crown had had greater opportunity to consider the details of copyright law the case would have been proved on the basis that merely playing a pirated game involves making a copy in the console and thus involves infringement. He may also be fortunate that, at least this far, he has not been sued in the civil courts. There the procedure is apt to be much faster, technical slip-ups in evidence can generally be readily cured before final judgment and the remedies of damages, an account of profits, injunction and legal costs are readily obtainable. Breach of an injunction, if serious, can of course itself lead to imprisonment. # We were asked to certify that this case involves a question of law of general public importance. We are willing so to do. The question (agreed by Counsel) which we certify is: Do the provisions of section 296ZF of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 in relation to "effective technological measures" apply to devices incorporated into computer games consoles and computer games which do not prevent counterfeit copies being made of such games but which do prevent the counterfeit copies from being played on games consoles?" [/QUOTE] Full Story: team-xecuter.com Full Court Ruling: bailii.org

[Bad_Ad]

Can anyone convert this into English?

[alexh]

Interesting read, looks like it was a total screw up on the part of the prosecution that lead to his lawyers managing to get him off. It seems like they were trying too hard to make this a legislation case which would rule all modchips illegal, instead of just going after MrModchips.

I am sure that with the right technical advice to the prosecution at his original trial he wouldn't have been so lucky.

I wonder what the UK rules are for being prosecuted twice for the same offence? Is he now free to sell modchips? Or does he risk future prosecution?

This post has been edited by alexh: Jun 24 2008, 06:23 PM

[Chancer]

Seems he got off on a technicality of law and that others may not have the fortune to do so. If I read this right it means people will still get taken to court for selling chips.

[bucko]

Whats ETM mean?

Seems if he was in America his ass would be slapped, good job he was trading in the UK.

Lets hope this allows for fair modding on the 360 and PS3 when the time comes.

[ekruob]

The last point sums it all up:

'We were also asked for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. This we refused, not least because it appears to us that the correct construction of the Act does not preclude the prosecution of manufacturers or distributors of modchips if evidence of copying in the process of playing is adduced.'

1. The prosecution asked for leave to appeal, and they refused.

2. The reason for the refusal was that the judges believe modchips are illegal - in that there is 'evidence of copying' - parts of infringing copies are copied into the console's memory (RAM) 'in the process of playing' (i.e. when it is played).

3. The prosecution simply forgot to include this in their evidence!

[teamparadox]

1. The prosecution asked for leave to appeal, and they refused.

2. The reason for the refusal was that the judges believe modchips are illegal - in that there is 'evidence of copying' - parts of infringing copies are copied into the console's memory (RAM) 'in the process of playing' (i.e. when it is played).

3. The prosecution simply forgot to include this in their evidence!

Yes but that would assume simply having a modchip means intent to copy or pirate. What about people who modify a console so they can make use of home brew software which has no need to be licensed?

I dont think any case against someone who makes or sells modchips can be considered fair for that very reason.

[ekruob]

Yes but that would assume simply having a modchip means intent to copy or pirate. What about people who modify a console so they can make use of home brew software which has no need to be licensed?

I dont think any case against someone who makes or sells modchips can be considered fair for that very reason.

1. The law (in many countries now) states that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, or sell (and sometimes own) any device that enables copyright infringent.

2. Whether something many people think is 'fair' is not what courts deal with - they deal with the law as it is drafted. Sure, it may indeed be unfair - but that simply means the law needs changing. It does not mean the court judgements are incorrect.

This post has been edited by ekruob: Jun 24 2008, 08:54 PM

[cory1492]

1. The law (in many countries now) states that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, or sell (and sometimes own) any device that enables copyright infringent.

So, you are basically saying that the law in many countries now makes dvd/cd burners, memory cards, iPod(and a-likes), TiVo, and for that matter even PCs of all flavors illegal? Not to mention - cameras, scanners, printing presses, photocopiers and anything else similar. I can think of so many ways in which your broad statement is just plain wrong, and it's unfortunate but it does seem that the law in many places could be interpreted that way and just hasn't been (yet?)

[clogicgmather]

So, you are basically saying that the law in many countries now makes dvd/cd burners, memory cards, iPod(and a-likes), TiVo, and for that matter even PCs of all flavors illegal? Not to mention - cameras, scanners, printing presses, photocopiers and anything else similar. I can think of so many ways in which your broad statement is just plain wrong, and it's unfortunate but it does seem that the law in many places could be interpreted that way and just hasn't been (yet?)

Correct me if im wrong but I believe 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states it is devices where the sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection, thus exempting aforementioned items.

This post has been edited by clogicgmather: Jun 24 2008, 09:36 PM

[HaredX]

devices where the sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection

That's just the thing, just like the aforementioned items, modchips don't have one sole purpose. So you cannot say that a modchip's sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection so that argument is null.

[lostboyz]

Everyone who owns a firearm will now receive an attempted manslaughter charge. Have a nice day

these laws are absurd, they cannot be applied to any other industry without looking completely idiotic
good for my mr modchips

This post has been edited by lostboyz: Jun 24 2008, 10:22 PM

[majik655]

So to sum this up... (my dumbass can't even understand some of you who try to explain with all that technical jargon lol)

Basically the prosecution was not going after mr. modchips for copying or selling games their proof was ONLY him SELLING or INSTALLING modchips period? OR they only put down the reason why for the suit was because of modchip selling?

And IF the prosecution would have ALSO gone after him for SELLING or PLAYING COPIED games (which the proof is held in RAM??) THEN more than likely there would have been prosecution AND maybe even further prosecution for the installing of ALL modchips since there was proof of copyright circumvention?

[HotKnife420]

Odd, I haven't heard of any manufacturers receiving subpoenas or anything. If the manufacturer is simply indemnified from the matter because they simply bring a schematic to life, then a distributor should be equally indemnified for bringing it to market.

As I stated in the other thread (perhaps all 3 "Mr. Modchips" threads should be merged?), a modchip doesn't make using originals any more difficult on your device. I chipped my PSX back in '95 and didn't have a single problem loading my store-bought games (which also goes for every other console I've owned). Me having a chip that enabled running unsigned code did not motivate me to stop paying for my games (in fact, I bought more games because it opened up the 'import' market for me).

Ultimately, it's the person who owns the modchip who is responsible for using it properly, much like a owning a gun. Nobody's telling Smith & Wessen to close down their business because people use their products to kill, nor are they shutting down pawn shops & gun stores.

Modchips don't pirate games, Cpt. Jack Sparrow does.

[rs15min]

Whats ETM mean?